🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:36:18 +0100, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z@z.lol.li> wrote:

>Adherents of LET often make statements such as "Lorentz ether theory
>does not know any paradoxes of relative motion" [1]. Even some of
>those who adhere to Special Relativity use LET in order to defend
>SR from paradoxes. They argue that LET, based only on time dilation
>and length contraction, makes the same predictions as SRT without the
>seemingly paradox SR simultaneity concept.
>
>The perported equivalence between SR and LET however stems from an
>astonishingly huge error, exemplified in this text [2]:
>
> "... two mirrors in parallel motion, with a pulse of light bouncing
>  between them. In this case the motion of the mirrors actually does
>  diminish the frequency of bounces, relative to the stationary ether
>  frame, because the light must travel further between each reflection.
>  Thus the time intervals 'expand' (i.e., dilate). Given this time
>  dilation of the local moving coordinates, it's fairly obvious
>  that there must be a corresponding change in the effective space
>  coordinate (since spatial lengths are directly related to time
>  intervals by dx = v*dt). In other words, if an observer moves at
>  speed v relative to the ground, and passes over an object of length
>  L at rest on the ground, the length of the object as assessed by the
>  moving observer is affected by his measure of time. Since he is
>  moving at speed v, the length of the object is v*dt, where dt is the
>  time it takes him to traverse the length of the object � but which
>  "dt" will he use?  Naturally if he bases his length estimate on the
>  measure of the time interval recorded on a ground clock, he will
>  have dt = L/v, so he will judge the object to be v*(L/v) = L
>  units in length. However, if he uses his own effective time as
>  indicated on his own co-moving transverse light clock, he will
>  have dt' = dt * (1 - v^2)^1/2, so the effective length is
>  v * [(L/v) * (1 - v2)^1/2] = L * (1 - v^2)^1/2. Thus, effective
>  length contraction (and no transverse expansion) is logically
>  unavoidable given the effective time dilation."
>
>Generally accepted premisses of LET are:
>
> - the ether is rigid
> - moving time dt' dilates/expands with respect to ether time dt:
>   dt = dt' * gamma
> - moving length dx' in direction of motion contracts wrt the ether:
>   dx = dx' / gamma
>
>However, the basic reasoning exemplified in the above quoted text
>implies instead of contraction of moving objects the exact contrary:
>contraction of the rigid ether with respect to moving objects. In
>LET (inasfar as it is not "a clever restatement" of SR), contraction
>results from the motion through the ether [3], so contraction of the
>ether with respect to moving objects is impossible.

LET uses REAL contractions of length and time to explain the MMX null result.
A consequence of this is that measured OWLS will always return the value 'c'.

Einstein began with the POSTULATE that measured OWLS would be c for all
differently moving observers. 

He then went on to mathematically describe the features of a universe based on
this postulate. 
A consequence was that relatively moving objects would apear to be conrtracted.

I have been pointing out for months that SR is nothing but LET run backwards.

Unfortunately for both theories, there is no absolute aether and there are no
contractions, either physical or observational.

The MMX result was to be expected simply because light moves at c wrt both its
source and everything at rest in the source frame.

Note: OWLS has never been measured. OWLS from differently moving sources has
never been compared. There has never been an experiment that directly supports
either SR OR LET.

'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.

The value of c can be determined with a TWLS experiment in vacuum, in which
case, tAB = tBA and OWLS = TWLS = c.

It's all so simple. Why try to make it difficult with a red herring?